Thank you for printing Susan Andrew’s Nov. 2 article about Wells Fargo’s destruction of three trees at the corner of Patton and Louisiana avenues in West Asheville so that its new sign would be more conspicuous from every angle [“The Beat: Three, Two, One … Xpress].
The article correctly observed that Wells Fargo had a permit to destroy trees, so it was legal. The important question is, was it right?
That it was not right is obvious for two reasons. First, the unusual size of the oak. It was a stately tree, at least 50 feet high, towering over a corner of undistinguished retail buildings and their unremarkable foundation plantings. The oak was the tallest tree along the entire length of the Patton Avenue strip, and was visible for much farther than the sign that replaced it. If, as Wells Fargo claims, some disease was in its upper branches, a competent arborist could have removed the affected branches.
Second, the unusual variety of the oak made cutting it not right. That was no common street tree. It was a columnar English oak, also known as a Cypress oak, the only mature specimen of its species that I know of in these parts. Even the North Carolina Arboretum does not have one in its collection. For good reason, it was a Treasured Tree.
Wells Fargo made a mistake in cutting down that magnificent tree, and the city planning department made a mistake in not catching them before they made that mistake.
— Stephen Weissman
Asheville
Subscribe to XpressMail. Free Sneak Peek. Every Week.
Want to know what's coming out in Xpress this week before the paper even hits the stands?
We've got your free sneak peek, along with deals available in XpressMail, our weekly email newsletter. (It's the best we can do without time travel.)
-
Comments
-
Related Articles
-
Comments
Make a comment
"The important question is, was it right?"
The owner of the property (including the trees) determined that a sign was preferable, so, yes, it was right. The owner chose the higher value to serve his best interest.
............................
By timothypeck
11/16/2011
"The owner of the property (including the trees) determined that a sign was preferable, so, yes, it was right. The owner chose the higher value to serve his best interest."
Translation: Since it is axiomatic that greed is good (so sayeth the Exalted Goddess of Greed, Self-Centeredness and Screw Everyone Else, Ayn Rand), since concern for being a good corporate citizen among a larger community is passé, and since Wells Fargo, known for laundering drug money and investing in for-profit prisons, has the ‘right’ to ugly up their own property and thrust their garish sign into the public eye, then buzz off.
By Dionysis
11/16/2011
Hear,hear
By Charles Shipman
11/16/2011
"the higher value to serve his best interest"
Oxygen, carbon sequestration, mitigation of storm water runoff and simple beauty are of lesser value in the pursuit of money.
Is it any wonder many people object to a completely unregulated capitalist system.
By Christopher C NC
11/16/2011
Adam Smith objected to a completely unregulated capitalist system. Ayn Rand objected to state welfare programs even after she began drawing benefits from them.
By sharpleycladd
11/16/2011
"Ayn Rand objected to state welfare programs even after she began drawing benefits from them."
Feet of clay.
By D. Dial
11/16/2011
It's called restitution.
..............
By timothypeck
11/16/2011
"...That was no common street tree. It was a columnar English oak, also known as a Cypress oak, the only mature specimen of its species that I know of in these parts. Even the North Carolina Arboretum does not have one in its collection. For good reason, it was a Treasured Tree...."
Perhaps the "good reason" is that it is a non-native tree. It belongs in Europe, not North America. Just like starlings, house sparrows, kudzu, Africanized bees and a host host of other invasive species it should be eradicated.
By reasonable
11/18/2011